FlyingCardboardbox

I feel the same lol. I've posted in a few threads about this now and you are the first person to acknowledge it as other convos are ongoing EDIT: thanks Nert, didnt see your message initially! From my own deep dives into Princeton's academic papers and also NASA Glenn, it appears there is an academic rift between fuel choice. So before we even get into RO configs, to get the physics right, it might be a good look at doing a fuel switch compatibility for MPDTs to switch between a lithium-barium mixture and Hydrogen. The danger here is finding isp values for fusion-plasma propulsion like daedilus and not pure MPDT thrusters that have electricity fed to them. So integrating into Real Fuels/ Interstellar Fuel Switch or whatever strikes your fancy. <Lithium> highest thrust, lowest isp and dangers of containment and ablative nozzle limits burn time <lithium barium mixture> less corrosion to be almost imperceptable, slightly lower thrust/ efficiency <hydrogen> this could be an unlockable switchable mode later in the tech tree. So you could run "Charon" on LH2 and get less thrust but 10,000s isp (to be conservative) rather than lithium's 2600s So from the graphs in Ohio Aerospace Institute and Princeton's papers respectively, (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253713475_MPD_Thruster_Performance_Analytic_Models) (https://alfven.princeton.edu/publications/choueiri-iepc-1997-121) the terminal voltage for lithium is a limiting factor for isp. And testing on earth with vacuum chambers, force stands, and glove boxes for safe handling of lithium limit the amount of mass flow rate. Princeton's PPL research seems to show that their highest sustained mass flow rate was 20 grams per second, and showed a greater than linear increase in thrust proportional to added propellant flow rate with constant operating voltage and amperage (electrical power). A lot of chemical RO engines have their reusability quantified as "ignitions remaining". This overall makes sense for chemical engines that burn for 2 minutes as boosters or 6+ minutes as sustainers. Chemical rocket limitiations aren't always dependent on ablative nozzles so much as turbopump wear and tear. Lithium Lorenz force Thrusters like the "Charon" model would corrode the cathode within the presumed burn time of hours or so (given beamed power/ reactor on board supplies sufficient juice). So for RO, could it be done to limit burn time of the engine, rather than limit restarts? I used Better TIme Warp and reduced throttle settings to send a mothership to Titan in RO, but with reduced thrust came reduced power consumption, which made my long burn times unreasonable, as the ship was not designed to sustain that burn power consumption indefinitely. Thanks for reaching out!

Hi Nert, I'm very impressed by the models you've done for Near Future Propulsion. I am switching builds from SMURFF RSS to full on RO and Principia. Have you considered making any RO configs for your LF-1 Charon an LF-2 Pyrios? Perhaps you could base them off of Princeton's LiLFA 30kW test model and extrapolate the power density (Thrust / m^2) with 200kW and up. The Hall thruster configs for HERMeS and such make the end game fun for probes, but getting 47,300 N out of Charon feels wrong in RO. If you'd like to collaborate on configs, let me know too!

Hi all, TLDR up front: Has anyone made any Realism Overhaul config files for the plasma thrusters from Near Future Propulsion, like the Charon model? I am switching from the ignorant bliss of SMURFF +RSS to a KSP build based around RO and Principia. I am keeping the parts pack mods I like (Firespitter, Near Future suite, Cryo engines, Kerbal Atomics, Extraplanetary Launchpads, etc). I am however not using Interstellar Extended for the moment. Therefore the Community Tech Tree in my career game is largely unmoved when getting to electric engines, Probes before Crew or not. The HERMes 12.5 kW Hall thruster, and other electrostatic ion engines have nice configs in RO to showcase their realistic TWRs of .001- .003 give or take. However, it is not until two tech nodes later, at Specialized Plasma Propulsion costing 4000 science that Ad Astra's VASIMR engines appear. Soooo.. I could take the time to try to write configs for myself or move the VASIMR engines forward in the tech tree. I could also just use the non RO MPDT engine like Charon and throttle it waaaay down below its ridiculous 47,300 N of thrust. The Charon model seems to be done after Princeton's test unit, and there are no MPDT's based on Japan's 1996 Space Flyer EPEX experiment. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster, 200 Newtons is a reasonable expectation for the size of lithium thrusters that are currently being tested. I find MPDTs very intriguing and perhaps could be the engine of choice for interplanetary tugs and more. So if anyone who is experience at making config files would like to help me in this endeavour, let me know! I look forward to hearing what people have to say.

Hi all, TLDR up front: Has anyone made any config files for the plasma thrusters from Near Future Propulsion, like the Charon model? I am switching from the ignorant bliss of SMURFF +RSS to a KSP build based around RO and Principia. I am keeping the parts pack mods I like (Firespitter, Near Future suite, Cryo engines, Kerbal Atomics, Extraplanetary Launchpads, etc). I am however not using Interstellar Extended for the moment. Therefore the Community Tech Tree in my career game is largely unmoved when we get to electric engines, Probes before Crew or not. The HERMes 12.5 kW Hall thruster, and other electrostatic ion engines have nice configs in RO to showcase their realistic TWRs of .001- .003 give or take. However, it is not until two tech nodes later, at Specialized Plasma Propulsion costing 4000 science that Ad Astra's VASIMR engines appear. Soooo.. I could take the time to try to write configs for myself or move the VASIMR engines forward in the tech tree. I could also just use the non RO MPDT engine like Charon and throttle it waaaay down below its ridiculous 47,300 N of thrust. The Charon model seems to be done after Princeton's test unit, and there are no MPDT's based on Japan's 1996 Space Flyer EPEX experiment. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster, 200 Newtons is a reasonable expectation for the size of lithium thrusters that are currently being tested. I find MPDTs very intriguing and perhaps could be the engine of choice for interplanetary tugs and more. So if anyone who is experience at making config files would like to help me in this endeavour, let me know! I'm going to post this in Near Future Tech's forum as well. I look forward to hearing what people have to say.

You are right. After more research, I found an answer I'm satisfied with. Torpor is being researched as a possibility even for trips to Mars. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20180007195.pdf. This is more akin to hibernation and reduces nutrient intake, rather than total cryosleep. So I'll use Deep Freeze for interplanetary transfers but with the TACLS usage lessened, not nullified until late game.

Hi, I am running a 1.7.3 RSS SMURFF + TAC build (and also the greenhouse mod, REX, Near future suite, Interstellar Extended). I am adding mods into this build as I progress through a career progression (NOT RP-0, just community tech tree). I want to download this down the line when it becomes relevant, just like I downloaded TAC for this build only when I progressed to be able to send Kerbals to the Moon. For the sake of performance, I don't want to download mods until they are necessary. 1. What tech level do the 1.25m, 2.5m, landing can cryo sets become unlockable? 550: Specialized Science Tech for 1.25m and single kerbal. 1000 for 3 and 10 kerbals in Long Term Science Tech. I plan to test in another throwaway game tonight, but I'm curious if it is possible to move these unlockables to later tech tree nodes. For example, if the Mk1 1.25m single in line cryo part is available at the 160 science level, why would anyone bother with the greenhouses or other TAC reprocessing equipment? My thought is for a realisitic gameplay, these all should only be unlocked together around the 1500 science level. Can I manually change that in the cfg files without messing up the Community Tech Tree or corrupting Module Manager, etc? 2. For a manned mission to Titan (lets be real, its more habitable than Mars), a Hohmann transfer takes about 4+ years on the upleg. Have any of you actually done this with DeepFreeze and not with TAC or USI, artificial gravity stations, and greenhouses? Or in other words, is it "realistic" that we as a species irl would use cryosleep for a 4 year voyage to an existing unmanned ground base on Titan and accept the biological risks on awakening? I just don't want to introduce another "tin-can" easy mode to sidestep TAC for a short 4 year mission with cryosleep if the method is only intended for Proxima Centauri and Trappist. Thanks all!

Hi, I've loved this mod in its modular format, experimenting with Real Moons, then adding Real TNOs, etc. I notice back in May 2019 there was a conversation about RealPatch one day including Principia compatibility. On of my 1.7.3 builds, with real patch and only real moons (RSS SMURFF, lowest texture quality, module manager etc), the game still crashes upon Resuming a career or starting a new one. On other 1.7.3 builds sans Principia I have enjoyed this mod and also Real Exoplanets (Trappist, Alpha Centauri, Barnard's Star, etc). These work well together, and also alongside Interstellar Extended. It may be a good idea to rename the textures file, because they both turn into REX-textures, when lower case is not retained. They do work together, but it makes removing one from a build without corrupting the other a bit tricky. (Also I have accepted that Principia will never function on multi-star systems due to N-body problems and double counts. This is why I would love you to make Real Expansion compatible with Principia